Jump to content


Photo

To those that said an Edge would blow me away...

  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#26 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15775
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:41 AM

Would having an Edge HD make a difference for Hyperstar imaging at all?
Or would it be equivalent in results to a regular C11?


No, there will be no difference.

#27 Alph

Alph

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1769
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Melmac

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:34 PM

Would having an Edge HD make a difference for Hyperstar imaging at all?
Or would it be equivalent in results to a regular C11?


No, there will be no difference.

I think we had this conversation before. Optical alignment is critical for Hyperstar performance. The EdgeHD telescopes come out of factory aligned more carefully as stipulated by the design

#28 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13179
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:54 PM

For Hyperstar use, Rod is right. This is done at the native focal lenght of the primary mirror and the Correcting elements in the baffle are not in the light train.

For Hyperstar imageing, it will be the same as the standard SCT.

Celestron even says the same thing in their white paper.

#29 fly2work

fly2work

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2012

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:27 PM

My Edge HD 1100 blows me away whether it is visual or imaging and mounted to the CGEM DX its rock solid! Mind you its been 14 years since I last owned a scope so quite a bit has changed!

#30 dscarpa

dscarpa

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3006
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2008
  • Loc: San Diego Ca.

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:09 PM

I've got one of the last made in the USA regular C-9.25s and it blows me away. Very sharp for lunar-planetary and DSOs. It's the equal of my IM-715D for lunar-planetary with very good seeing and smokes it when conditions are excellent. I use Naglers, a 13 Ethos and a 20 ES 100 in it a lot and don't find FC to be an issue. There's some coma but I don't notice it if I don't look for it. David

#31 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 12839
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:22 PM

If I ever buy another SCT, it will have EdgeHD optics.

#32 XwarpfactorX

XwarpfactorX

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2012
  • Loc: California

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:23 PM

I've got a CPC 1100 HD on the way, can't wait to take that first look through it. I've never had a SCT before, only a fast newtonian. Coma is pretty bad.

#33 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11434
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 18 January 2013 - 12:09 AM

I spent some time tonight with my new EdgeHD 8" and all I can say is this is the best scope I've ever owned.

When someone says that you can get the same image as a standard SCT at the center of the fov, they're right. BUT, with the EdgeHD, you no longer have to observe in the center of the fov...you're not constrained to making sure your object is centered.

When observing, I've always found myself fiddling with object positioning, trying to get it centered just right. It doesn't matter with the EdgeHD.

That really came home to me tonight while observing the Trap. The seeing wasn't too great, but the transparency was excellent. Nevertheless the stars were round without flaring all the way to the edge. I sat there looking at the Trap's splendor with it sitting 2/3rd of the way off center. That was amazing. I can't wait to see what this scope can do with great seeing.

Patrick

#34 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13179
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:26 AM

Yes, looking through an EdgeHD is a much different experience than using a standard SCT.

I learned about field sharpness from using large achromats. While the field of a 6" f/8 achromat is not completly flat, it is indeed flatter than a C8, and the design is corrected for coma.

When I started using the 6" f/8 achrmoat, what I really discovered is that what makes refractors the great scopes they are is not what is at the center of the field. Heck most every bigger SCT I have owned was easily better at the center of the field than the 6" f/8 achromat.

But the first time I looked at the Double Cluster in the 6" f/8 achromat, the earth moved under me. The absoute brilliance of the stars even out to the edge of the field of a 22mm Panoptic was nothing short of awe-inspiring.

This was a view I had never had with any other telescope.

And this was the moment that I realized that differences in off axis performance in telescope design are far more important than the relatively small differences in how they pwerform at the center of the field.

And the EdgeHD 8" is an utterly superb off axis performer. The "Space walk" experience is far more apparent using a Nagler in an EdgeHD than it is using a Nagler in a standard SCT.

Wonderful scope. Ties with my 6" APO for producing the most aesthetically pleasing view.

#35 ewave

ewave

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Loc: northwest NJ

Posted 18 January 2013 - 11:14 AM

I spent some time tonight with my new EdgeHD 8" and all I can say is this is the best scope I've ever owned.

When someone says that you can get the same image as a standard SCT at the center of the fov, they're right. BUT, with the EdgeHD, you no longer have to observe in the center of the fov...you're not constrained to making sure your object is centered.

When observing, I've always found myself fiddling with object positioning, trying to get it centered just right. It doesn't matter with the EdgeHD.

That really came home to me tonight while observing the Trap. The seeing wasn't too great, but the transparency was excellent. Nevertheless the stars were round without flaring all the way to the edge. I sat there looking at the Trap's splendor with it sitting 2/3rd of the way off center. That was amazing. I can't wait to see what this scope can do with great seeing.

Patrick

Great to see another great sample of the Edge. Can't wait to see how you like it when doing AP. The C9.25 Edge is the best SCT I've owned but I've only owned 3 SCTs in my life. Just wish the reducer for the C9.25 was out by now....more than a couple years waiting... :4

#36 Footbag

Footbag

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6252
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Scranton, PA

Posted 18 January 2013 - 11:59 AM

I'll relate my experience with the Edge. I first received the Edge 800 and did a bunch of visual observing while learning about my new mount. The views were amazing. I used it for about a month, and then one day noticed that the dovetail bar wasn't seated properly, I tried to fix it, but learned that the mounting holes were drilled off. I spoke to the vendor I purchased it from and they sent me a replacement.

I received the replacement and noticed my views were disappointing. I fretted about the scope I gave up. Then, the first time I used the 2nd edge for imaging, I noticed very odd star shapes in different directions. At first, I thought it was collimation, but after troubleshooting, I think it had to do something with the focuser/mirror lock mechanism. Like it was binding the mirror even when unlocked.

This time, my vendor referred me to Celestron. I have heard horror stories of Celestron's customer service, but I had a great experience. I explained my problem, and they hand selected a replacement. My first views through the new Edge, pop! Amazing views and detail. When imaging my star shape is perfect.

So, with the exception of the one OTA that had the problem, both of the 800's I've looked through were equally impressive.

Now, for those who say the performance is only better off axis, the performance is still better, right?

I really wonder if Celestron is taking their better mirrors and putting them into the Edge HD's. I seem to remember seeing a site which compared strehl's and the Edges seemed to perform very well compared to other SCT's. But, I can no longer find this site and am wondering if I made it up in my head.

#37 aa6ww

aa6ww

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Sacramento, Calif.

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:09 PM

I have a Cpc1100... your making the envy boil now lol. Let's just say I got an 11" edge HD.. visually.. would I see a difference?



Assuming optical quality is similar, at the center of the field, the view would not be better.

My last C8 had excellent optics, and on planets and the moon, at the center of the field, the view was about exactly the same.

All of the benefit of the EdgeHD design is to be found in the off axis performance.

The value proposition for the EdgeHD (in my own opinion) is for imagers and for people that enjoy using modern ultra-wide field eyepeices.

If you are content with Panoptic class eyepeices, it is very difficult for me to say that the EdgeHD will be a better scope. With Panoptics or similar high quality 68 degree wide field eyepieces, the abberations coming from the telescope are not magnified enough to be prominent.

If you go to a Nagler (or similar 82 degree AFOV eyepeice) or Ethos (or similar), for the same size true field of view, the magnificaiton of the eyepeice will make the abberated blur at the edge of the field easier to resolve, so the outside of the field will not appear as sharp.

The EdgeHD makes the scope visually sharp all the way across when using these new modern wide fields.

For someone that is content with Panoptic type eyepeices (or other similar narrower field types with excellent off axis performance), the EdgeHD may not be as compelling.

And for those that say that they only look at the center of the field, there would appear to be no value whatsoever in the EdgeHD scope design.

But once you become accustomed to using a telescope that presents a pinpoint image right to the field stop of modern wide field eyepieces, you very quickly become sold on the value proposition of the EdgeHD design.

Lots of people say "refractor like," and this has been my own message for a decade. The real value of refractors is their coma-free performance.

The EdgeHD is not "refractor-like." It is "refractor equal" in terms of across the field performance.

It is the only reflecting telescope I use that stands toe to toe with my 6" APO and provides an equal across the field viewing experience. With the 31mm Nagler, the view is amazingly brilliant.

Of course I am limited to the 1.1 degree true field in the EdgeHD 8", but since getting the EdgeHD 8" the 6" APO has been a hanger queen more than ever before. It only comes out for the Milky Way when I want 2 degree fields. If it will fit in the field of the EdgeHD 8", the view is better in the EdgeHD 8".

The best SCT ever made in my opinion.

Is it right for everyone? Dedicated planatery observers will find no benefit and narrow feild eyepeice users will see only a tiny improvement.

But imagers and Nagler, and Etho fans will be in a new place.

A footnote.. When using Ethos and even Naglers, seeing will keep stars from appearin pinpoint in larger SCTs even at the center of the field. The field will still appear much sharper in the EdgeHD scopes because it is all in focus (much of the "Bloat" we observe in SCTs is simply due to the field only being partially in focus), but stars may still appear bloated at the center when you compare the view of a 21mm Ethos to a 35mm Panoptic.

And the bigger the SCT, the worse this will occur.

Even at the center of the field, I prefer the 41mm Pan to my 31mm Nagler in the C14. Stars are just more pinpoint at the center.

For this reason, the bigger the SCT, the more serious the problem becomes, and the value propsition shifts if the user tends to have migrated to Panoptics vs Naglers.

For visual use, I am not sure that the C14 EdgeHD value proposition is still there. I have struggled with this myself. I am not sure I would use Naglers in the C14, so the extra benefit of sharper off axis performance might not be important. I am a staunch advocate of Panoptic class eyepeices in the C14 because of the seeing bloat issue, and the improved off axis performance is negated if you are only using Panoptics.


Try finding the Pup in your Edge scope, or try splitting IZAR on any given night. Try taking in the entire Andromeda in your Edge in one field of view. Every scope wants to have views a refractor can have, but only a refractor can do that. Ive never heard or a refractor that wanted to optics like any SCT. Seriously.
Every scope has its reason for existing, they are all as unique as people are. Once people realize this, the world will be a wonderful place!!

...Ralph

#38 Gord

Gord

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2004
  • Loc: Toronto, ON, Canada

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:35 PM

Hmmm, I haven't tried the Pup yet (is it _ever_ going to clear up?!), but I have split Antares a few times now, but only with the C8. Never with the refractors. I've also never found a refractor that will show as much of Andromeda as the C14 has (definition of dark lanes, star clouds and globulars *in* M31).

The Edge HD has views with very similar characteristics as refractors. Well, very big refractors that is! :lol:

Clear skies,

#39 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3593
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:14 PM

I would like to own an HD, but here is my problem with that purchase:

The regular C11 is $1799 and a C11 HD is $3399 and the only true difference in these two scopes is a small lens mounted inside the telescope. So buying an HD is like spending $1600 for a corrector lens. Even Tak with their ridiculous accessory prices does not charge that much for a corrector.

Plus the simple fact that for only a few hundred more you can get a C14 instead of C11 HD.

Maybe it is worth $1600 to see a nice flat field with no distortion at the edges, probably is worth it, but I can't help feel they are taking advantage of us.

#40 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:20 PM

I was getting annoyed with comatic stars around the center when imaging with regular C-8 at F/10 (without F/6.3 focal reducer-corrector). So I replaced it with EdgeHD and to me it was worth the extra expense of getting flat FOV from edge to edge. Celestron did it right with EdgeHD scopes.

Peter

#41 cn register 5

cn register 5

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:30 PM

Someone has to pay for the R&D that goes into designing those few pieces of glass.

Perhaps knocking the bottom out of a milk bottle and taping it onto the back out a regular SCT would work - but I doubt it.

Chris

#42 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11434
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:33 PM

I was not able to justify spending $3400 on a EdgeHD 11 either, but I could justify the $1300 for the 8". It's one of the best value scopes on the market, IMHO.

Patrick

#43 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:49 PM

I agree, the 8" EdgeHD at $1300 is kinda hard to resist.

#44 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13179
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:02 PM

I really wonder if Celestron is taking their better mirrors and putting them into the Edge HD's.


Not possible at least for the EdgeHD 8". The EdgeHD 8" uses a faster mirror than the standard C8, and the mirror spacing for optimal focus is a little closer as a result.

But people used to say this about the C9 (The optics were supposedly the best, but they clearly were not. I can point you to three interferometer tests that show conclusively that the quality varied on the C9 across the normal spectrum).

The Ultima was another example where some people felt that the Ultima model received special mirrors, but there was no conclusive proof.

My guess is that lower manufacturing costs simply allow them to produce a consistently better range of products. Their ED refractors for example are rolling out of the door with what used to be premium quality optics in the past. Now it is the norm.

And makeing high quality SCTs with all spherical mirrors should not be hard. It just takes time and care. If your labor is cheap enough, you can build iPhones, Toasters, or almost anything else to consistently excellent levels of quality if you want to.

And apparently Synta wants to. Bravo.

#45 Hothersale

Hothersale

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Victoria, BC

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:02 PM

This thread is killing me! I have an order placed for a (back-ordered) Comet Hunter + Twilight II mount for the AMAZING price of $999... but now I'm reconsidering if I shouldn't just spring for an EdgeHD 8" and stick it on my Voyager. More money, and less FOV... but almost certainly better views. Gah!

#46 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27929
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:50 PM

I would like to own an HD, but here is my problem with that purchase:

The regular C11 is $1799 and a C11 HD is $3399 and the only true difference in these two scopes is a small lens mounted inside the telescope. So buying an HD is like spending $1600 for a corrector lens. Even Tak with their ridiculous accessory prices does not charge that much for a corrector.

Plus the simple fact that for only a few hundred more you can get a C14 instead of C11 HD.

Maybe it is worth $1600 to see a nice flat field with no distortion at the edges, probably is worth it, but I can't help feel they are taking advantage of us.


An educated guess leads me to believe that Celestron was looking at the quickly expanding imaging side of our hobby. A flat field f10 SC is very attractive to those looking for image scale. A well done image of the Ring Nebula using an f10 SC is quite impressive in its native form. A lot less cropping is required to have a nice image. Then add the flat field of the Edge and you have a very pleasing image. And there's that option of adding a Hyperstar to the imager's bag of tricks and you have an imaging scope that can suck in a lot of photons in a hurry and have that widefield option for stuff like M45.

Besides, I have an 11" Edge that will arrive the 23rd. :grin: I'll find out just how flat the field is when I stick my QHY8 Pro on it. :D

David

#47 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11434
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 19 January 2013 - 12:25 AM

I have an order placed for a (back-ordered) Comet Hunter + Twilight II mount for the AMAZING price of $999... but now I'm reconsidering if I shouldn't just spring for an EdgeHD 8" and stick it on my Voyager.



They are really two different animals (I've got both right now). The Comet Hunter is a wide field dream scope. It has a wide flat field that's capable of a 3.5 degree field of view at 730mm f/l. The EdgeHD 8" is still an SCT with a max TFOV of about 1.3 deg at 2000mm f/l. The Comet Hunter is a very nice imaging scope as well.

So, it really depends on what you want to do with it. I don't think I'd be happy mounting an 8" SCT on a Voyager mount due to the weight. Also, starhopping with an 8" SCT is a recipe for frustration.

Not to dissuade you from the Twilight II mount...I had one and sent it back. I was not happy with the Comet Hunter on the mount. The Comet Hunter is a rather "large" 6" scope weighing about 18 lbs with all the finders, etc attached. And it's about 28" long. That's the price you pay for the wide field of view.

Patrick

#48 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3593
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 20 January 2013 - 01:46 AM

Actually the C8 works extremely well on the voyager. I have used that combo a lot. Very stable.

#49 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11434
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 20 January 2013 - 08:14 AM

Actually the C8 works extremely well on the voyager. I have used that combo a lot. Very stable.



Sounds good. What works well for one person may not for another. A lot of it is purely personal preference.

Regards,

Patrick

#50 Moonglum

Moonglum

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 576
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2008

Posted 20 January 2013 - 09:29 AM

I too was hoping to eventually starhop with a 8"Edge on a Universal Macrostar with no electronics, but now ya got me worried Patrick. Would it not be ok if I attached my F50 finder to the Edge ota? (I ask because I haven't used my F50 to find the brighter DSO yet, so I don't know how effective it will be- I live in a small town with fairly dark skies...)






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics